Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 401 posts

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#391

Post by coffeebeqn »

locallost wrote: post #112

The direct to consumer pivot is often mentioned, but this is probably something that just accelerated their demise. The bigger problem right now for the turnaround is the competition. A lot of Chinese brands even dominate some spaces like basketball in the last years, and they are still difficult to get in Europe where I live, but they are making a push. Once that happens, I am not sure what Nike is going to do. Qual…

The Chinese sneakers are made at the same factory out of the same materials and processes

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#392

Post by triceratops »

dijit wrote: post #364
throwawayffffas wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does so in an incredibly long winded stream of consciousness that meanders all over the place, and half way through reads as "Nike is bad because it went woke."

> "Nike is bad because it went woke." They tried expanding their audience for a perceived larger audience. Eventually they realised that the "weight" of bringing in this larger audience meant letting some things go. The things they let go were their core demographic. They were unable to bring in the whale anyway. Thus, greed, not malice (or a political agenda) lead them to lose their standing. It's not more political…

> It's not more political than that.

I agree, the article wasn't political. But your commentary on it "don’t buy stuff from people who hate you." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49692857) made it seem political.

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#393

Post by CharlieDigital »

tencentshill wrote: post #293
alexpotato wrote: post #219

There is a great article [0] that has some interesting points about this: - Nike used to be very "male coded" e.g. "Be like Mike" - So much so that they were one of the only companies where men bought more clothes than women - The powers that be wanted to go after the "Adjacent Whale" (explained in the article) that was the female consumer - They ended up alienating their core customer base while competing poorly wit…

I don't think "culture war" was a big contributor.

Nowadays, it seems that catering to any audience other than 1) white 2) male is "culture war".

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#394

Post by ifwinterco »

DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #264
nemothekid wrote: post #11

Nike's destruction over the past 5 years was really surprised and until I read up about the whole "direct to consumer" fiasco it really helped me understand another trend I was a bit confused about. About 2-3 years, it felt like, out of nowhere everyone was wearing Hoka and On brand sneakers. In my entire life it felt like the Nike/Adidas duopoly was unbreakable, and then it felt suddenly that Hoka was everywhere. Wh…

Hoka is big in the running market but that’s basically all. Same with New Balance. I think where Hoka got lucky was with the explosion of popularity of running and Nike failing to understand their need to offer a fashion running product not just a performance running product. Hoka did and reaped massive rewards as a result.

New Balance were Dad shoes 10 years ago but somehow they are now fashionable in the UK (also Asics).

I'd literally never heard of Hoka or On in my life though before this thread and they do not look fashionable

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#395

Post by goton23122 »

rrr_oh_man wrote: post #247

Can anyone recommend durable, bright white, wide toe box, not ugly looking sneakers without any brand logos?

> not ugly looking sneakers but white

https://barefootuniverse.com/best-white-barefoot-sneakers/

I dont know what style you're after. These are my recommendations for brands that look decent.

AltraRunning (Escalante), LemsShoes (Zenspeed, trailtrasher, primal3), VivoBarefoot, Fluxfootwear, OhneProject, XeroShoes (Wynn)

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#396

Post by triceratops »

mikestew wrote: post #357
dijit wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think the people flagging me haven’t bothered to try reading it, they just assume that they know what it says and thats enough. Despite the fact that I suspect many would agree with the core sentiment, no matter which political side you’re on. It argues that greed causes loss of direction, and that large corporations can’t help themselves but to be greedy.

I’m not reading that disjointed wall of text to the end. If you have a point to make, spit out, don’t proxy it to someone else. Links are to support your argument, not make it for you.

Tl;dr Men made up 2/3 of Nike's sales. Its ads and marketing and celebrity endorsements reflected that focus: masculine (Michael Jordan), heavy on themes of competition, focus, and win-at-all-costs high achievement. Ads that are practically "boyhood fantasy" and which some would call "toxic" masculinity.

Then, realizing that women actually spend more money than men, by far, on shoes and clothing, Nike tried a different tack. The marketing downplayed masculinity and emphasized inclusion and diversity. It tried to more overtly target women. This turned men off the brand without bringing more sales from women.

The author argues that Nike's previous marketing resonated because it reflected real life and truth on some level: guys really like sports and winning, and they'll spend money with a brand that embodies those ideas. The new "woke" marketing didn't really appeal to anyone at the same level, even if they agree with the message.

Posts like this are red meat for some people. But does Hoka or On have really "macho" advertising? FWIW I think Nike's direct-to-consumer pivot was the actual cause of their current situation.

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#397

Post by mikestew »

triceratops wrote: post #396
mikestew wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not reading that disjointed wall of text to the end. If you have a point to make, spit out, don’t proxy it to someone else. Links are to support your argument, not make it for you.

Tl;dr Men made up 2/3 of Nike's sales. Its ads and marketing and celebrity endorsements reflected that focus: masculine (Michael Jordan), heavy on themes of competition, focus, and win-at-all-costs high achievement. Ads that are practically "boyhood fantasy" and which some would call "toxic" masculinity. Then, realizing that women actually spend more money than men, by far, on shoes and clothing, Nike tried a differe…

At the same time, Nike put out banners in Boston before the Boston Marathon that said "Runners welcome, walkers tolerated" and caught a rash of shit for it. Keeping in mind that runners have to qualify to run Boston (we'll ignore charity runners for the time being), and those qualifying standards are not easy. You're not going to walk your way to a Boston-qualifying time. (I'd guess 85-90% of actual runners can't qualify in their age group.)

My point being, times have changed, too, and what Nike used to get lauded for (I loved their ads on the back of Runner's World in the 70s/80s) now gets called out as "not inclusive".

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#398

Post by cosmojg »

nunez wrote: post #366
freetime2 wrote: post #81

I had a good 15+ year run where I only ever wore Nikes. Then I wore my first wide toe-box shoes and haven’t bought Nike since. Looking back, Nike was never very good about offering different width options on most of their shoes. And I still don’t think they offer wide toe box shoes.

Nike used to have sort-of minimalist shoes (Nike Free) but they (and Adidas) never really embraced that movement. New Balance tried with the Minimus line, but they eventually re-designed them with a more traditional architecture (narrower toe box, arch support, some drop). Same with Merrell.

I still sometimes wear my decade-old Nike Free RNs held together with little more than spoiled hopes, dreams, and shoe goo.

Re: Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

#399

Post by dijit »

triceratops wrote: post #392
dijit wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Nike is bad because it went woke." They tried expanding their audience for a perceived larger audience. Eventually they realised that the "weight" of bringing in this larger audience meant letting some things go. The things they let go were their core demographic. They were unable to bring in the whale anyway. Thus, greed, not malice (or a political agenda) lead them to lose their standing. It's not more political…

> It's not more political than that. I agree, the article wasn't political. But your commentary on it "don’t buy stuff from people who hate you." ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49692857 ) made it seem political.

My statement was neutral, you shouldn't buy from people who hate you.

They seem to really dislike me, and I would say the same to any person who was going to buy something from somewhere. You wouldn't be flagging me if it was a person buying products from an open nazi.

I think it's you who have chosen to make it political, and you're effectively saying I don't get to make this distinction because... of a prejudice you have.

Whether you'd like to admit that or not, that's on you. But the statement is purely neutral and applies to everyone.

Post reply on HN